Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    eddeee
    Parking Eye PCN
    • #1
    • 10th Nov 13, 7:02 PM
    Parking Eye PCN 10th Nov 13 at 7:02 PM
    Hi there,

    I received a PCN from ParkingEye. After reading the forums on here I sent the following reply:

    -----------------------------------------------------
    Dear Sir or Madam,

    A Penalty Charge notice was received yesterday, Friday 25th October, issued on 9th October 1830 - 1954, on a vehicle registered E8**W, at 'Associated British Ports Town Quay

    This charge is being appealed based on the following grounds

    ·The signage in the car park is not adequately displayed and illuminated

    ·This is a ‘Parking Charge Notice Reminder’, although it is the first notice that has been received.

    ·I have received this notice reminder, issued by an ANPR camera, longer than 14 days after the alleged offence

    ·The charge is not proportionate to the number of people using the car park at a large proportion of times throughout the day

    ·The charge is punitive and therefore completely unjustifiable, neither is it enforceable.


    I require you to cancel this charge or send me a POPLA reference so that I can refer to POPLA

    Regards
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    I have since received a letter of rejection to the appeal (all seven pages), which outlined cases which judges found in ParkingEye's favour.

    This was followed by a POPLA appeal form.

    I would really appreciate not paying this charge, as I had no idea that I was being filmed. I was fishing from the Town Quay and was at no time further than 5m from my car. I have parked here at other times, and have received no other PCNs as of yet.

    I would also like to add that I do not want to go to court in order to get out of paying this fine. I am a student, will be looking for mortgages etc within the foreseeable future, and cannot afford any blemishes on my record.

    Any help would be much appreciated
    Last edited by eddeee; 10-11-2013 at 8:34 PM.
Page 1
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 10th Nov 13, 7:37 PM
    • 10,852 Posts
    • 10,334 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #2
    • 10th Nov 13, 7:37 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Nov 13, 7:37 PM
    Hi there,

    I received a PCN from ParkingEye. After reading the forums on here I sent the following reply:

    -----------------------------------------------------
    Dear Sir or Madam,

    A Penalty Charge notice was received yesterday, Friday 25th October, issued on 9th October 1830 - 1954, on a vehicle registered E8**W, at 'Associated British Ports Town Quay

    This charge is being appealed based on the following grounds

    ·The signage in the car park is not adequately displayed and illuminated

    ·This is a ‘Parking Charge Notice Reminder’, although it is the first notice that has been received.

    ·I have received this notice reminder, issued by an ANPR camera, longer than 14 days after the alleged offence

    ·The charge is not proportionate to the number of people using the car park at a large proportion of times throughout the day

    ·The charge is punitive and therefore completely unjustifiable, neither is it enforceable.


    I require you to cancel this charge or send me a POPLA reference so that I can refer to POPLA

    Regards,

    Edward Williams.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    I have since received a letter of rejection to the appeal (all seven pages), which outlined cases which judges found in ParkingEye's favour.

    This was followed by a POPLA appeal form.

    I would really appreciate not paying this charge, as I had no idea that I was being filmed. I was fishing from the Town Quay and was at no time further than 5m from my car. I have parked here at other times, and have received no other PCNs as of yet.

    I would also like to add that I do not want to go to court in order to get out of paying this fine. I am a student, will be looking for mortgages etc within the foreseeable future, and cannot afford any blemishes on my record.

    Any help would be much appreciated
    Originally posted by eddeee
    You need to appeal to POPLA. I suggest you look at this appeal here to see if you find it appropriate http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816165

    You may want to add the point that you as keeper received the NtK out of time and you are, therefore, not liable as keeper. But that is only valid if the NtK is dated after 21st October. PCCs backdate NtKs and blame the post and POPLA accept it.

    The out of time only applies to keeper liability not driver liability, so ensure your appeal keeps clear blue water between you as keeper from "the driver".

    Please post up your appeal before sending it off but do it soon.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Nov 13, 7:40 PM
    • 73,769 Posts
    • 85,977 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 10th Nov 13, 7:40 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Nov 13, 7:40 PM
    How to win at POPLA (2013 information). POPLA decisions (do not start reading there at page 1 - read back from the most recent at the end, and learn!).

    You should re-state these points:

    ·The signage in the car park is not adequately displayed and illuminated (cite the 'contrast & illumination' rules in the BPA CoP)

    ·This is a ‘Parking Charge Notice Reminder’, although it is the first notice that has been received. (no Notice to Keeper ever sent so no keeper liability)

    ·I have received this notice reminder, issued by an ANPR camera, longer than 14 days after the alleged offence (no registered keeper liability established)

    And include 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss', and 'no legal title in the land and no relevant contract with landowner etc...' as on the linked examples.

    And where is this 'Town Quay' ? Is it at a docks/ferry port where byelaws already apply? If so then you can say this is not 'relevant land' under POFA 2012 and as such there is no keeper liability.

    Links to the BPA CoP and to POFA 2012 schedule 4 are here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    HTH and make sure the whole appeal does not in any wording, imply who was driving.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-11-2013 at 7:46 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • eddeee
    • #4
    • 21st Nov 13, 10:55 AM
    • #4
    • 21st Nov 13, 10:55 AM
    Apologies for the late reply, I have been extremely busy with University lately. I wanted to post my POPLA appeal on here, but worried that it had been quite a long time between PE rejection and POPLA appeal, so went ahead and submitted. It read as follows:

    ---------------------------------------------
    This charge is being appealed based on the following grounds

    The signage in the car park is not adequately displayed and illuminated. The alleged offence occurred outside of daylight hours. According to BPA Code of Practice ‘Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times’.

    As keeper of the vehicle, no ‘Notice to Keeper’ was received. The first correspondence was a ‘Parking Charge Notice Reminder’, although it is the first notice that has been received.

    This notice reminder was received, issued by an ANPR camera, longer than 14 days after the alleged offence

    The charge is punitive as it is not proportionate to the number of people using the car park at a large proportion of times throughout the day. Therefore there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    It is wholly unclear when entering the car park in question that users are on camera, and liable to automatic parking charges.
    ------------------------------------------

    Fingers crossed, and thank you for your help and feedback, I will post the reply.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Nov 13, 11:27 AM
    • 73,769 Posts
    • 85,977 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 21st Nov 13, 11:27 AM
    • #5
    • 21st Nov 13, 11:27 AM
    You 'should' be OK with that POPLA appeal as it says 'there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss.'

    The important point not in there is this:

    PE do not have the legal standing to make contracts with drivers nor to allege loss, as they are not the landowner. As such, you require the contract to be shown to POPLA which shows PE not to merely be in an agency agreement but that they have specifically been granted the right to pursue charges in the courts in their own name as creditor. A witness statement saying there is a contract will not suffice.

    And if Town Quay is a Ferry Port or part of the Port Authority (you don't have to know for sure)

    You can add, as this site is at the Ferry Port you believe that byelaws apply, such that it is not 'relevant land' under POFA 2012 at all. As such there is no keeper liability. ParkingEye would need to be put to strict proof otherwise, with maps of the port and the extent of the bylaws applicable and why this land is in their view 'relevant land'.

    And your last point needed to ask that PE show full compliance with the ANPR section of the BPA CoP since you contend they have breached it, not displayed the required clear signage about ANPR use of data, and in any case their ANPR is unreliable and not time-sychronised to a sufficient standard to be instant, as in the case of PE v Fox-Jones (Oct 2013).

    You could just amend the above to read in the first person from you as registered keeper, print those points off under a heading 'URGENT further evidence & information about verification number xxxxxxxxxx already submitted online' and post it to POPLA now!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-11-2013 at 12:39 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Nov 13, 11:39 AM
    • 23,793 Posts
    • 38,101 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 21st Nov 13, 11:39 AM
    • #6
    • 21st Nov 13, 11:39 AM
    This is certainly one of the most minimalist of approaches to a POPLA appeal I've yet seen. From a purist point of view I'd be happy to sit back and see how it plays out, but I'm just wondering whether the OP recognises (and is prepared to take the risk) how much shorter and fewer on words than those that have gone before - and won.

    Whilst I recognise that GPEOL is included, I just thought the OP might want to consider it against the exemplar that Guys Dad has helpfully put together. OP, here it is for comparison purposes.

    4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

    The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

    The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
    The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

    For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

    It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

    Note for Parking EYE cases.

    Parking Eye have a letter sent by their director that actually states that their costs per case are £53. That being the case, their £100 obviously contains an element of profit. The letter in question is here http://imgur.com/a/vzLDq

    A paragraph such as the following should be added in PE cases.

    “ Furthermore, I attach a letter from Parking Eye in correspondence with another case, that admits that their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operating costs, and this that the charge they are seeking to impose in my case has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By their own admission, therefore, It can not, be a true pre-estimate of loss”
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • eddeee
    • #7
    • 17th Jan 14, 10:56 AM
    Parking appeal accepted!!!!!!!!
    • #7
    • 17th Jan 14, 10:56 AM
    I received an email today informing me that this appeal has been accepted. As was made clear, I should have spent more time carrying out research ahead of my appeal, but it seems I have been lucky.
    ----------------------------------
    The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of the parking charge being punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without purchasing the appropriate parking time. They state that they believe that their charges are fair and reasonable and they have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing and enforcing the parking charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to BPA membership, DVLA, loss of revenue, national insurance and etc.
    Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other cases but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that some heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not. Equally for the reasons, set out above, a list of all their costs in the case cannot amount to commercial justification. In short, the damages sought on this particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss or fall within commercial justification.
    Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
    ----------------------------------

    Thanks very much for your help.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 17th Jan 14, 11:50 AM
    • 14,794 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    • #8
    • 17th Jan 14, 11:50 AM
    • #8
    • 17th Jan 14, 11:50 AM
    Well done.

    Who was the assessor please?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jan 14, 4:59 PM
    • 73,769 Posts
    • 85,977 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 17th Jan 14, 4:59 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Jan 14, 4:59 PM
    Well done - do please tell us the Assessor's name as we do keep records on these wins!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,354Posts Today

6,685Users online

Martin's Twitter